The Obama administration has announced that rather than wait for
Congress to act, it has authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to
move forward on enacting new regulations on greenhouse gas emissions
emitted from hundreds of power plants and large industrial facilities.

WASHINGTON - The Environmental Protection Agency took a major step Monday toward regulating greenhouses gases, concluding that climate changing pollution threatens the public health and the environment.

The announcement came as the Obama administration looked to boost its arguments at an international climate conference that the United States is aggressively taking actions to combat global warming, even though Congress has yet to act on climate legislation. The conference opened Monday in Copenhagen.

The EPA said that the scientific evidence surrounding climate change clearly shows that greenhouse gases "threaten the public health and welfare of the American people" and that the pollutants — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels — should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

"These long-overdue findings cement 2009's place in history as the year when the United States government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution," said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson at news conference.

The action by the EPA, which has been anticipated for months, clearly was timed to add to the momentum toward some sort of agreement on climate change at the Copenhagen conference and try to push Congress to approve climate legislation.

"This is a clear message to Copenhagen of the Obama administration's commitments to address global climate change," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., lead author of a climate bill before the Senate. "The message to Congress is crystal clear: get moving."

Obama planned to talk with former Vice President Al Gore at the White House on Monday as the president prepares for his appearance on Dec. 18 at the climate summit in Copenhagen. Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his work toward combating climate change.

Obama is also meeting on Wednesday with environmental leaders and U.S. business leaders to discuss climate change.

Under a Supreme Court ruling, the finding of endangerment is needed before the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases released from power plants, factories and automobiles under the federal Clean Air Act.

The EPA signaled last April that it was inclined to view heat-trapping pollution as a threat to public health and welfare and began to take public comments under a formal rulemaking. The action marked a reversal from the Bush administration, which had declined to aggressively pursue the issue.

Business groups have strongly argued against tackling global warming through the Clean Air Act, saying it is less flexible and more costly than the cap-and-trade bill being considered before Congress. On Monday, some of those groups questioned the timing of the EPA's announcement, calling it political.

"The implications of today's action by EPA are far-reaching ... individual Americans and consumers and businesses alike will be dramatically affected by this decision," said Charles T. Drevna, the president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association. Drevna, in a statement, said "it is hardly the time to risk the remainder of the U.S. industrial sector in an attempt to achieve a short-term international public relations victory."

Waiting for Congress to act
Any regulations are also likely to spawn lawsuits and lengthy legal fights.

The EPA and the White House have said regulations on greenhouse gases will not be imminent even after an endangerment finding, saying that the administration would prefer that Congress act to limit such pollution through an economy-wide cap on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Nevertheless, the EPA has begun the early stages of developing permit requirements on carbon dioxide pollution from large emitters such as power plants. The administration also has said it will require automobile fuel economy to increase to a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2016, another push to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

The EPA's readiness to tackle climate change is expected to give a boost to U.S. arguments at the climate conference opening in Copenhagen this week that the United States is making broad commitments to reduce greenhouse gases.

While the House has approved climate legislation that would cut emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and about 80 percent by mid-century, the Senate has yet to take up the measure amid strong Republican opposition and reluctance by some centrist Democrats.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., lead author of the Senate bill, has argued that if Congress doesn't act, the EPA will require greenhouse gas emissions. He has called EPA regulation a "blunt instrument" that would pose a bigger problem for industry than legislation crafted to mitigate some of the costs of shifting away from carbon emitting fossil fuels.

The way was opened for the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to cut climate-changing emissions by the Supreme Court in 2007, when the court declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Act. But the court said the EPA must determine if these pollutants pose a danger to public health and welfare before it can regulate them.

Which of the above 3 greenhouse gasses do you consider to be safe at any level?

What non-crackpost source can you use as proof to show that the above 3 gasses are safe for humans at all levels as well as the particulate matter that is emitted by these power plants?

Do you think that there should be any regulations in place in regards to what pollutants and the quantities emitted by power plants and such?

I remember about 5-6 years back traveling to Pensacola FL to visit a friend and drove through Alabama and Florida in the dark when I got there. When I left to drive home, I drove through those areas again in the daylight and was surprised by what I saw. I drove by what I believe was a paper plant and couldn't believe my eyes. The steam that was emitted seemed to cover the entire area along with small particulate matter and an awful smell. Perhaps some of what was covering the ground was frost, but it wasn't only frost I don't believe. I could never live in an area like that.

rearnakedchoke

12-08-2009, 03:25 PM

i don't know how people can't believe that we are killing our planet ... just look at the amount of pollutants we release into the environment ... do i think the poles are going to melt tomorrow? no, but if we keep polluting the planet, we are going to for future generations ...

Neezar

12-08-2009, 04:51 PM

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Which of the above 3 greenhouse gasses do you consider to be safe at any level?

What non-crackpost source can you use as proof to show that the above 3 gasses are safe for humans at all levels as well as the particulate matter that is emitted by these power plants?

The EPA was told 2 years ago that if they could prove that these actually endangered humans then they could regulate it. If they can't prove it harmful to us then who can?

Their only argument: The climate change proves it is harmful.

That's it? :huh: The government wants more proof and frankly, so do I.

Buzzard

12-08-2009, 06:10 PM

The EPA was told 2 years ago that if they could prove that these actually endangered humans then they could regulate it. If they can't prove it harmful to us then who can?

Their only argument: The climate change proves it is harmful.

That's it? :huh: The government wants more proof and frankly, so do I.

There is much information out there regarding the safe levels of those 3 gases. Too much of either of them can be unhealthy. There are OSHA standards also in regard to workplace safety and the safe levels of those gases for worker exposure.

The information is already out there. Your statement that the governments only argument is that "The climate change proves it is harmful" is quite a stretch.

Neezar

12-08-2009, 06:41 PM

There is much information out there regarding the safe levels of those 3 gases. Too much of either of them can be unhealthy. There are OSHA standards also in regard to workplace safety and the safe levels of those gases for worker exposure.

The information is already out there. Your statement that the governments only argument is that "The climate change proves it is harmful" is quite a stretch.

I got my information from the article.

The way was opened for the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to cut climate-changing emissions by the Supreme Court in 2007, when the court declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Act. But the court said the EPA must determine if these pollutants pose a danger to public health and welfare before it can regulate them.

Sounds like the below is what was proposed by the EPA -

The EPA said that the scientific evidence surrounding climate change clearly shows that greenhouse gases "threaten the public health and welfare (http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=85752#) of the American people" and that the pollutants — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels — should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

However, the Supreme Court is still not agreeing to regulate it yet. Their response

Under a Supreme Court ruling, the finding of endangerment is needed before the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases released from power plants, factories and automobiles under the federal Clean Air Act.

So if the EPA submitted something else then the writer of this article did a gross injustice to the topic by omitting it.

rockdawg21

12-08-2009, 06:54 PM

In what way has any scientist PROVEN greenhouse gases are causing "global warming"? Saying the temperature of the Earth has increased by a whopping 1.2 degrees Celcius in 70 years is NOT PROOF of anything.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Which of the above 3 greenhouse gasses do you consider to be safe at any level?

What non-crackpost source can you use as proof to show that the above 3 gasses are safe for humans at all levels as well as the particulate matter that is emitted by these power plants?

Obviously, those compounds are NOT harming humans in all levels because they are a part of the air we breathe EVERY DAY. As for your question, which of the 3 are safe at "any level?" Well, CO2 and NO2 are part of the NATURAL composition of dry atmosphere, therefore, they are safe because we breathe it every day - it's not as if people are dying off in massive numbers due to "air pollution". As for S02, show me PROOF not THEORY it is destroying our planet and then you and the crackpot scientists MIGHT have a real argument.

KENTUCKYREDBONE

12-08-2009, 07:59 PM

I would rather the EPA be the law enforcers than law makers! As much as I dislike most politicians the law is suppose to be made by elected officials like congress,the House and Senate who in theory at least answer to the people. On these pollution laws you can go way to far in either direction and this Global Warming stuff has turned into almost a Religion of its own! In fact I have been tempted to classify it as occult like cause of how aggressive,dishonest and harmful some folk's in the movement are!

Crisco

12-08-2009, 10:27 PM

I would like to see some environmental clean up going on. I feel like certain areas of this country and the world are just completely disrespected and polluted beyond rhyme or reason.

Stuff leaking int othe groundwater and what not.

The economy is fragil right now and we have to be careful.

It's hard to stay in the middle and not be sucked in the corporate douche bags and the liberal NAzis on two sides of the spectrum.

rockdawg21

12-09-2009, 12:31 AM

I would like to see some environmental clean up going on. I feel like certain areas of this country and the world are just completely disrespected and polluted beyond rhyme or reason.

Stuff leaking int othe groundwater and what not.

The economy is fragil right now and we have to be careful.

It's hard to stay in the middle and not be sucked in the corporate douche bags and the liberal NAzis on two sides of the spectrum.
I agree, it's a natural progression to make changes to renewable energy, but the degree to which the media and crackpot scientists claim about the effects on the environment are just ridiculous. Next thing you know, they're going to tell us in Mayan scripture, it reads that the humans kill themselves in 2012 due to inert gases harming our atmosphere so we should do something drastic right now, like bankrupt ourselves to China.

Neezar

12-09-2009, 12:36 AM

The administration also has said it will require automobile fuel economy to increase to a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2016, another push to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Does this mean that we all have to get a KIA before 2016? :huh:

Oh wait, let me guess. You can keep your car as long as you pay a Emissions Tax to the government. :wink:

Buzzard

12-09-2009, 11:34 AM

I agree, it's a natural progression to make changes to renewable energy, but the degree to which the media and crackpot scientists claim about the effects on the environment are just ridiculous. Next thing you know, they're going to tell us in Mayan scripture, it reads that the humans kill themselves in 2012 due to inert gases harming our atmosphere so we should do something drastic right now, like bankrupt ourselves to China.

My initial reaction to your original post immediately caused to me to disregard your post because of your instant labeling of the scientists as crackpots, yet you offered nothing to refute any of their claims. When one immediately places a negative label onto someone without offering anything to refute those claims, I think of the OP as the crackpot because they have brought nothing to counter any claims. The use of these negative labels immediately makes me disregard anything you may have to say and to then thing of you as the crackpot because you have brought nothing to the table.

These links are meant to show some of the problems with higher levels of these gases and some of the effects.

My apologies if these links aren't what I say as I am posting this after 23 hours of no sleep. I'll try to do some more research and post findings when I have had some sleep and can type better than a monkey.

In summation, starting an argument with negative labeling and without bringing anything to back a claim proves nothing and actual hurts the credibility of the one making the post. If the wording in the OP was neutral and provided data to refute the claims of the quoted article, I would be more inclined to read it with more of an open mind rather than immediately going in a defensive mode and thinking that the crackpot was the one that made the original post.

Too late and I hope I made sense in my sleepless rambling.

Do you find all scientists to be crackpots? Were the scientists who stated high levels of Radon in a home could be unhealthy crackpots?

It's way to late for me to finish up without rambling on more and messing up my own arguments due to lack of sleep.

Goodnight all.

rockdawg21

12-09-2009, 01:14 PM

My initial reaction to your original post immediately caused to me to disregard your post because of your instant labeling of the scientists as crackpots, yet you offered nothing to refute any of their claims. When one immediately places a negative label onto someone without offering anything to refute those claims, I think of the OP as the crackpot because they have brought nothing to counter any claims. The use of these negative labels immediately makes me disregard anything you may have to say and to then thing of you as the crackpot because you have brought nothing to the table.

These links are meant to show some of the problems with higher levels of these gases and some of the effects.

My apologies if these links aren't what I say as I am posting this after 23 hours of no sleep. I'll try to do some more research and post findings when I have had some sleep and can type better than a monkey.

In summation, starting an argument with negative labeling and without bringing anything to back a claim proves nothing and actual hurts the credibility of the one making the post. If the wording in the OP was neutral and provided data to refute the claims of the quoted article, I would be more inclined to read it with more of an open mind rather than immediately going in a defensive mode and thinking that the crackpot was the one that made the original post.

Too late and I hope I made sense in my sleepless rambling.

Do you find all scientists to be crackpots? Were the scientists who stated high levels of Radon in a home could be unhealthy crackpots?

It's way to late for me to finish up without rambling on more and messing up my own arguments due to lack of sleep.

Goodnight all.

I realize you were tired so you must have overlooked my reply:

In what way has any scientist PROVEN greenhouse gases are causing "global warming"? Saying the temperature of the Earth has increased by a whopping 1.2 degrees Celcius in 70 years is NOT PROOF of anything.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Which of the above 3 greenhouse gasses do you consider to be safe at any level?

What non-crackpost source can you use as proof to show that the above 3 gasses are safe for humans at all levels as well as the particulate matter that is emitted by these power plants?

Obviously, those compounds are NOT harming humans in all levels because they are a part of the air we breathe EVERY DAY. As for your question, which of the 3 are safe at "any level?" Well, CO2 and NO2 are part of the NATURAL composition of dry atmosphere, therefore, they are safe because we breathe it every day - it's not as if people are dying off in massive numbers due to "air pollution". As for S02, show me PROOF not THEORY it is destroying our planet and then you and the crackpot scientists MIGHT have a real argument.

NateR

12-09-2009, 04:11 PM

In what way has any scientist PROVEN greenhouse gases are causing "global warming"? Saying the temperature of the Earth has increased by a whopping 1.2 degrees Celcius in 70 years is NOT PROOF of anything.

Yeah, if you actually study the science involved and don't just blindly accept the word of "experts" then you will see that there is very little real evidence that "global warming/global cooling/climate change" (or whatever this scam is being labeled this decade) is anything more than a natural cyclical process. Any scientist who is truly honest about the subject and not trying to push an agenda must admit that the evidence that this is human-caused is sketchy at best.

There is also evidence that much of our climate and the state of our ozone layer is more of a result of sunspot activity, not pollution. In other words, there is nothing we can do about it and stripping people of the freedom to live their own lives is not the answer.

But of course, this is the internet, so it's really tough to win an argument against the intellectually-stunted, "everything I ever needed to know I learned from internet search engines" crowd. :wink:

Buzzard

12-10-2009, 01:57 AM

Yeah, if you actually study the science involved and don't just blindly accept the word of "experts" then you will see that there is very little real evidence that "global warming/global cooling/climate change" (or whatever this scam is being labeled this decade) is anything more than a natural cyclical process. Any scientist who is truly honest about the subject and not trying to push an agenda must admit that the evidence that this is human-caused is sketchy at best.

There is also evidence that much of our climate and the state of our ozone layer is more of a result of sunspot activity, not pollution. In other words, there is nothing we can do about it and stripping people of the freedom to live their own lives is not the answer.

But of course, this is the internet, so it's really tough to win an argument against the intellectually-stunted, "everything I ever needed to know I learned from internet search engines" crowd. :wink:

So you equate regulation of the emission of pollutants to stripping people of the freedom to live their own life?

I haven't said that I agree or disagree with the global warming arguments, only that I agree with the regulation of the emission of harmful pollutants. I'm not stating that I have been accused of saying that either, just affirming my position.

Where do you get your information about global warming and stuff NateR? Are you taking college classes on it or reading about it in magazines and also internet sites? Do you go to the library and get books on it and study it? Just wondering. I'd guess you are one of the intellectually-stunted, "everything I ever needed to know I learned from internet search engines" crowd. :wink::wink::wink:

NateR

12-10-2009, 02:30 AM

Where do you get your information about global warming and stuff NateR? Are you taking college classes on it or reading about it in magazines and also internet sites? Do you go to the library and get books on it and study it? Just wondering. I'd guess you are one of the :wink::wink:

I read these things called "books" in big buildings called "libraries." I've also taken a college course on Geography, so I know that there is no real scientific evidence that links human pollution to "climate change."

As I've stated before, the internet is NOT a reliable source for information. Thus, I avoid it unless I can verify a site's content with an actual printed source.

Buzzard

12-10-2009, 03:17 AM

I realize you were tired so you must have overlooked my reply:

I was beyond tired and shouldn't post when waiting for a sleeping pill to kick in. While my body was tired, my mind wouldn't shut off completely.

Do you think that there should be regulations for what and how much pollutants can be emitted from power plants?

NateR

12-10-2009, 03:31 AM

Do you think that there should be regulations for what and how much pollutants can be emitted from power plants?

I would say yes, but I don't trust politicians to stop at just regulating the power plants.

Buzzard

12-10-2009, 03:45 AM

I read these things called "books" in big buildings called "libraries."

Really, there are things called books in things called libraries?

I've also taken a college course on Geography, so I know that there is no real scientific evidence that links human pollution to "climate change."

Wow, you are the man. So because you have taken on course in Geography you think that you are a scientist. Incredible.

As I've stated before, the internet is NOT a reliable source for information. Thus, I avoid it unless I can verify a site's content with an actual printed source.

You are wrong too about the internet not being a reliable source for information. Too bad that you can't differentiate between the good sources and the bad. You think that just because something is written in book form it is reliable? Wow. Is an article that is written in a book or magazine and then posted on the internet not reliable just because it now on the internet?

It is absurd to think that humans can pollute and not have some effect on the environment, which in turn has an effect on the climate, however small that effect may be. Granted some changes are natural, but to deny that we have no impact is hardly intelligent. Evidence is out there, but you are too stubborn to accept it. I don't accept all that is out there because there are folks who have fudged information to fit their agendas. There is evidence nonetheless.

NateR

12-10-2009, 04:01 AM

Wow, you are the man. So because you have taken on course in Geography you think that you are a scientist. Incredible.

I didn't say that did I? However, I learned enough to know that science doesn't know the answer of what is causing "climate change." Also, just a basic knowledge of the scientific method is helpful in determining what is true science and what is just speculation and guesswork.

I'm not a scientist, but I am also not an idiot. So I am capable of examining the facts and formulating my own opinions, not allowing self-proclaimed experts to dictate my opinions for me.

Neezar

12-10-2009, 04:39 AM

My initial reaction to your original post immediately caused to me to disregard your post because of your instant labeling of the scientists as crackpots, yet you offered nothing to refute any of their claims. When one immediately places a negative label onto someone without offering anything to refute those claims, I think of the OP as the crackpot because they have brought nothing to counter any claims. The use of these negative labels immediately makes me disregard anything you may have to say and to then thing of you as the crackpot because you have brought nothing to the table.

In summation, starting an argument with negative labeling and without bringing anything to back a claim proves nothing and actual hurts the credibility of the one making the post. If the wording in the OP was neutral and provided data to refute the claims of the quoted article, I would be more inclined to read it with more of an open mind rather than immediately going in a defensive mode and thinking that the crackpot was the one that made the original post.

I would like to see your source of evidence for this statement. :mellow:

:laugh:

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l88/Matt19871/internet-24591.jpg

You sound like you have a degree in internet fighting. lol

Tyburn

12-14-2009, 01:03 AM

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Which of the above 3 greenhouse gasses do you consider to be safe at any level?

What non-crackpost source can you use as proof to show that the above 3 gasses are safe for humans at all levels as well as the particulate matter that is emitted by these power plants?

Do you think that there should be any regulations in place in regards to what pollutants and the quantities emitted by power plants and such?

I remember about 5-6 years back traveling to Pensacola FL to visit a friend and drove through Alabama and Florida in the dark when I got there. When I left to drive home, I drove through those areas again in the daylight and was surprised by what I saw. I drove by what I believe was a paper plant and couldn't believe my eyes. The steam that was emitted seemed to cover the entire area along with small particulate matter and an awful smell. Perhaps some of what was covering the ground was frost, but it wasn't only frost I don't believe. I could never live in an area like that.

Carbon Dioxide isnt that dangerous...your breathing it out into the atmosphere right now. Too much and you might suffocate I suppose...but we're along wayy from that

Sulphur Dioxide, smells really bad, might make you get a headache or sick...but again...your only likely to encounter it in that capacity near some kinda active volcanic vent.

Nitrogen...well most of the atmosphere is nitrogen...Nitrates are good for the soil...what...so you might get high if you get a wiff...dont pretend thats a bad thing :laugh:

Now is it damaging to the natural world? define damaging? The earth isnt as fragile as we make out. Any Damage done can be readdressed by the Earths homeostatic mechanisms. They are...people act like this has never happened before or like Global Warming is the end of the world...no..its a cycle thats happened before, happens naturally, and all we are doing is speeding it up. It will change the world...but its passing...on a planetary scale...the planet will simply act differently and bring back the status quo...people say the ice caps melting is bad...why...they have melted more or less completely before...its not an irreversable process...it might be along time...but they will come back, they will reform...Global Warming leads to Global Cooling...no...really :)

Neezar

12-14-2009, 01:41 AM

The Dave has spoken.

Tyburn

12-14-2009, 02:00 AM

The Dave has spoken.

:ashamed: Yes, we have :laugh:

NateR

12-14-2009, 03:29 AM

Carbon Dioxide isnt that dangerous...your breathing it out into the atmosphere right now. Too much and you might suffocate I suppose...but we're along wayy from that

Don't forget that plants require CO2 for photosynthesis and we need the O2 that plants produce to breathe.

Humans inhale O2 and exhale CO2, plants "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" O2. Pretty convenient how that works out isn't it? Almost like some really intelligent guy designed it. :wink:

Tyburn

12-14-2009, 11:23 AM

Don't forget that plants require CO2 for photosynthesis and we need the O2 that plants produce to breathe.

Humans inhale O2 and exhale CO2, plants "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" O2. Pretty convenient how that works out isn't it? Almost like some really intelligent guy designed it. :wink:

GODs not dumb, its a designed system...not only that...get this. The MORE carbon dioxide in the air, the faster and taller trees in the forrests grow, they did studies on the forrest in madagasgar...or some bizzare place like that...its actually got an expansion clause in this little rule..

...now Deforrestation IS an issue...you can see how you DO need the plants to enforce this recycling element...but thats not really a global warming issue...more a conservation issue:laugh:

Neezar

12-22-2009, 02:52 PM

Does anyone find it ironic that most people who went to this copenhagen climate conference went by jet? Therefore, their getting there put out more damage than most families will put out in a whole year. Yep, they seem very concerned to me.

Tyburn

12-22-2009, 05:32 PM

Does anyone find it ironic that most people who went to this copenhagen climate conference went by jet? Therefore, their getting there put out more damage than most families will put out in a whole year. Yep, they seem very concerned to me.

:laugh: I saw a statistic that said the carbon footprint of that conference was about the same as a small country for a whole year...I forget which country exactly.

ohh the irony :laugh:

Crisco

12-22-2009, 06:11 PM

Don't forget that plants require CO2 for photosynthesis and we need the O2 that plants produce to breathe.

Humans inhale O2 and exhale CO2, plants "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" O2. Pretty convenient how that works out isn't it? Almost like some really intelligent guy designed it. :wink:

Which bring ups a good point...

Cutting down the entire amazon and nearly everything green we can make a buck off of is a bad idea and business model.

SOMEONE HAS TO SPEAK FOR THE TREES!

NateR

12-22-2009, 07:06 PM

Which bring ups a good point...

Cutting down the entire amazon and nearly everything green we can make a buck off of is a bad idea and business model.

SOMEONE HAS TO SPEAK FOR THE TREES!

I guess I can agree with that, we don't want this to happen to us:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTFP9QQzEL4

:)

Tyburn

12-22-2009, 07:31 PM

I guess I can agree with that, we don't want this to happen to us:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTFP9QQzEL4